For the record, I explicitly stated I wasn't trying to start up rotation/block talk again. Just wanted to state what I think was making things a bit stale IMHO ~We have another couple of months before starting rotation talk again… 
Plus we got in something about competative Multi-player!
~Let's talk about card errors/playtesting to get the trifecta! 
rings said:
How can we talk about something that obviously doesn't exist 
jrichardf said:
sWhiteboy said:
As long as king-making exists, Melee will be a NPE.
Most of the time I have spent playing Game of Thrones was with the same few guys in San Francisco prior to a big move, and this was NEVER a problem. We wanted to beat each other. I am still bewildered by what I heard of last year's GenCon, with people colluding to help someone win. FFG chooses not to have rules to avoid this sort of thing, perhaps in an effort to simulate the source material, but all that does is make the game less fun. The fact is, 4-player AGOT games are more dynamic and unpredictable, and to my mind, more interesting.That's what makes it so unfortunate that unsportsmanlike conduct is hurting Melee in tourney play. Letting it be political is one thing, but letting something make a game less fun should be where that ends. Outside of that, there are a lot of things that make Melee a more exciting and fun way to play the game.
I am obviously out of the loop, as I had never heard of this. And I'm with jrichardf as to now mind-boggling this is.
That being said, I cannot agree with the assumption that this is what competitive Melee will be from here on in. One incident does not a pattern make.
And sure they never had rules for this… who would have anticipated that people would conspire in a multi-player game to see that one player wins? Not I.
Should they have rules for this? How? How could you prove that some players are working together for the benefit of one of them, unless a TO overhears them saying as much?
Again, that being said, I don't think we should despair of Melee. It is a unique and different way of playing, and in my own little meta, we alternate Joust and Melee events to the enjoyment of all.
jrichardf said:
sWhiteboy said:
As long as king-making exists, Melee will be a NPE.
Most of the time I have spent playing Game of Thrones was with the same few guys in San Francisco prior to a big move, and this was NEVER a problem. We wanted to beat each other. I am still bewildered by what I heard of last year's GenCon, with people colluding to help someone win. FFG chooses not to have rules to avoid this sort of thing, perhaps in an effort to simulate the source material, but all that does is make the game less fun. The fact is, 4-player AGOT games are more dynamic and unpredictable, and to my mind, more interesting.That's what makes it so unfortunate that unsportsmanlike conduct is hurting Melee in tourney play. Letting it be political is one thing, but letting something make a game less fun should be where that ends. Outside of that, there are a lot of things that make Melee a more exciting and fun way to play the game.
Melee is fun. It's my favorite format. BUT. It will never be a competitive format. There are too many variables, too many people who hate it, and too much incentive for people to king make eachother. I personally think melee should be meta vs meta. However, there are just too many issues involved.
For now, it will remain semi-casual. Joust is the only real competitive format.
How did Vampire the Eternal Struggle deal with kingmaking? Granted, the mechanics there were a little different, since you were required to defeat each opponent at the table as opposed to being able to race to the win.
Fieras said:
too much incentive for people to king make eachother.
Such as? I've been trying to think of any motivation that I could have to make someone else win instead of trying for it myself, and I'm coming up empty.
It's not like there are big cash prizes to split.
sWhiteboy said:
rings said:
How can we talk about something that obviously doesn't exist
QFT.
KristoffStark said:
Fieras said:
too much incentive for people to king make eachother.
Such as? I've been trying to think of any motivation that I could have to make someone else win instead of trying for it myself, and I'm coming up empty.
It's not like there are big cash prizes to split.
Apparently you hate your friends and don't want to see them succeed.
sWhiteboy said:
KristoffStark said:
Fieras said:
too much incentive for people to king make eachother.
Such as? I've been trying to think of any motivation that I could have to make someone else win instead of trying for it myself, and I'm coming up empty.
It's not like there are big cash prizes to split.
Apparently you hate your friends and don't want to see them succeed.
I'm afraid the specific meaning of your sarcastic comment has eluded me.
Are you suggesting that if I like my friends, I would help them win instead of trying to win myself?
By that logic, when seated against a friend in Joust, wouldn't I just concede so they win?
Or if three friends who like each other sit down with a stranger for a melee, wouldn't the three friends just try to help each other, none of them taking an oppertunity to win, thereby actually benefiting the forth player?
KristoffStark said:
sWhiteboy said:
KristoffStark said:
Fieras said:
too much incentive for people to king make eachother.
Such as? I've been trying to think of any motivation that I could have to make someone else win instead of trying for it myself, and I'm coming up empty.
It's not like there are big cash prizes to split.
Apparently you hate your friends and don't want to see them succeed.
I'm afraid the specific meaning of your sarcastic comment has eluded me.
Are you suggesting that if I like my friends, I would help them win instead of trying to win myself?
By that logic, when seated against a friend in Joust, wouldn't I just concede so they win?
Or if three friends who like each other sit down with a stranger for a melee, wouldn't the three friends just try to help each other, none of them taking an oppertunity to win, thereby actually benefiting the forth player?
I think you might be overlooking a very common situation. If I am in a melee game with a meta mate and on clearly in 4th place in terms of power and board position, I would absolutely use whatever influence I had left to help my meta mate as opposed to the others. I think that is all he was trying to say. If I have no chance to win myself, THEN I revert to playing a support role, not at the outset of the match.
KristoffStark said:
Fieras said:
too much incentive for people to king make eachother.
Such as? I've been trying to think of any motivation that I could have to make someone else win instead of trying for it myself, and I'm coming up empty.
It's not like there are big cash prizes to split.
Melee pairings are random. I you lost your first 2 tables, I assume you would be more than willing to help your friend win the 3rd game, knowing that you have no chance of making the cut. Additionally, what if you are in a situation where you are going to take last place regardless and you have the choice of letting your friend win, or some guy you don't know? Maybe you are like a bunch of people who were at worlds who had no intention of even trying to win and were just there to mess with people and kingmake.
I am not saying you would act one way or another. I am just saying that there were plenty of people there who didn't care if they won or not. Additionally, there were peopel there who were just playing so they could mess around and piss people off. Some people hate melee so much, that they will play it just so they can make it an NPE for others.
The incentive being that if my friend wins the whole shebang, he will be designing a card in a future CP or Deluxe box. Heck, he may want to design it with his friends or meta. If stranger X or Y wins, then me and my friend will just be waiting for them to design such a card.
I've also heard of players in melee settling for 2nd or 3rd place at a table just because it's guaranteed points, so they will help keep someone else at the 4th place points level. A viable strategy if it means running away with some points to help place you or advance you.
Joust is quite different in that it will be either you or your friend gaining the most points or winning the title.
I admit that I do not like the situation nor the way that you can screw over the other players at that table, but it is certainly something that I think I might do to help my friend win, especially if I have no shot or am far behind in power already.
dcdennis said:
KristoffStark said:
sWhiteboy said:
KristoffStark said:
Fieras said:
too much incentive for people to king make eachother.
Such as? I've been trying to think of any motivation that I could have to make someone else win instead of trying for it myself, and I'm coming up empty.
It's not like there are big cash prizes to split.
Apparently you hate your friends and don't want to see them succeed.
I'm afraid the specific meaning of your sarcastic comment has eluded me.
Are you suggesting that if I like my friends, I would help them win instead of trying to win myself?
By that logic, when seated against a friend in Joust, wouldn't I just concede so they win?
Or if three friends who like each other sit down with a stranger for a melee, wouldn't the three friends just try to help each other, none of them taking an oppertunity to win, thereby actually benefiting the forth player?
I think you might be overlooking a very common situation. If I am in a melee game with a meta mate and on clearly in 4th place in terms of power and board position, I would absolutely use whatever influence I had left to help my meta mate as opposed to the others. I think that is all he was trying to say. If I have no chance to win myself, THEN I revert to playing a support role, not at the outset of the match.
If that is the way that people think, then I suppose I must continue to be entirely boggled by it.
I have seen the scales tip too drastically and too suddenly in this game, even in melee (perhaps even especially in melee), that except in extreme circumstances (perhaps in 1 of every 12 games, a great minority of the time) would I consider it not worth trying to win.
Perhaps that makes me more competitive than the average competitive level player… a statement whose irony should not go unnoticed. I don't hate my friends, but if I didn't want to beat them at a game, I wouldn't play the game.
Kristoff & JR: i used to be right tehre with you guys as a propnent of melee as a competitive format. BUT - they way it has been played has changed my opinion. The gamesmanship goes beyond just table specific tactical choices: Folks have been known to bring non melee competitive decks like Lannister kneel and Targ burn - specifically to take down high rnaking players in the format based on points in the preliminary round (s).
I can't take the formats eriously as long as colloboration liek that is tacitly approved.
i think melee is still the most immersive way to recreate the feel of teh books in a table top setting - but I can't take it seriously as a competitve format.
I hope this is not too off-topic, but what specifically would need to change in order for Melee to become a good competitive format? To my mind, the quality of the Melee format is one of the key things that makes AGoT such a standout game. It won me over from L5R, because of the lack of support for that game's multiplayer format (I speak specifically of WoH for those who are familiar with it). I prefer games I can play with more than one opponent at a time, and AGoT was designed with this core feature in mind. I feel strongly about this, that it is worth FFG's time and effort to seek a way of making Melee a more palatable event format for those who prefer it over Joust, and eliminating the player-made flaws that keep it from being successful as a competitive format.
MarthWMaster said:
I hope this is not too off-topic, but what specifically would need to change in order for Melee to become a good competitive format? To my mind, the quality of the Melee format is one of the key things that makes AGoT such a standout game. It won me over from L5R, because of the lack of support for that game's multiplayer format (I speak specifically of WoH for those who are familiar with it). I prefer games I can play with more than one opponent at a time, and AGoT was designed with this core feature in mind. I feel strongly about this, that it is worth FFG's time and effort to seek a way of making Melee a more palatable event format for those who prefer it over Joust, and eliminating the player-made flaws that keep it from being successful as a competitive format.
Its hard to say what would fix it. I know I might be beating a dead horse, but perhaps separating melee from the overall champion title would be a good start. That way, people who didn't want to play it wouldn't be forced to, and there would be less need for some of the players to collude. After that, the only thing I can think of would be to somehow penalize a player for kingmaking or colluding. How you would go about doing that, I have no idea.
Fieras said:
MarthWMaster said:
I hope this is not too off-topic, but what specifically would need to change in order for Melee to become a good competitive format? To my mind, the quality of the Melee format is one of the key things that makes AGoT such a standout game. It won me over from L5R, because of the lack of support for that game's multiplayer format (I speak specifically of WoH for those who are familiar with it). I prefer games I can play with more than one opponent at a time, and AGoT was designed with this core feature in mind. I feel strongly about this, that it is worth FFG's time and effort to seek a way of making Melee a more palatable event format for those who prefer it over Joust, and eliminating the player-made flaws that keep it from being successful as a competitive format.
Its hard to say what would fix it. I know I might be beating a dead horse, but perhaps separating melee from the overall champion title would be a good start. That way, people who didn't want to play it wouldn't be forced to, and there would be less need for some of the players to collude. After that, the only thing I can think of would be to somehow penalize a player for kingmaking or colluding. How you would go about doing that, I have no idea.
This. I love melee and I love joust so I definitely don't have a "favorite" event. However, I've never really understood the point of the overall champion. Espcially seeing the craziness in the last year i.e. Greg placing 4th in melee and 2nd in joust at GenCon and losing overall to someone who won melee and got 8th in joust. And again at the SW MO 2012 regional when Greg won BOTH events but tied for overall champion on points. The only way to keep the majority of kingmaking/collusion out of melee is to make the tournament entirely seperate, but equal, to the joust. Same prizes, same venue, same everything except remove the overall champ.
Like Fieras said, it's beating a dead horse, but it's the only thing I can think of that would "fix" melee.
Last year at gencon I recall there being a discussion of people coming in and registering as a "team" for melee.
That is the team wins by overall points, thereby sort of making king-making a legit strategy.
As for an earlier question as to how VTES handled it, I think they did it where you only could directly attack the person to your left. And you only got points for beating that person (your prey). At the same time VTES also had a lot of political cards (an actual type of action) which involved voting (based off vampire character's titles) that had global effects.
bloodycelt said:
Last year at gencon I recall there being a discussion of people coming in and registering as a "team" for melee.
That is the team wins by overall points, thereby sort of making king-making a legit strategy.
As for an earlier question as to how VTES handled it, I think they did it where you only could directly attack the person to your left. And you only got points for beating that person (your prey). At the same time VTES also had a lot of political cards (an actual type of action) which involved voting (based off vampire character's titles) that had global effects.
I had an idea of giving random team assignments that don't fall along meta lines. So when members of your team do well, you get additional points added to your total. You could call it the House of Thorns variant, since the Tyrells were a bunch of kingmaking leeches.
The easiest fix is to drop Overall title. This way there is no real reason to intentionally lose in Melee (unless you are 100% sure that you are not winning the table you are at).
BBSB12 said:
The easiest fix is to drop Overall title. This way there is no real reason to intentionally lose in Melee (unless you are 100% sure that you are not winning the table you are at).
Which is easy to see many times (say, last year at Worlds). You can still hand over the Melee title to someone which comes with the same benefit thatt he overall does. *shrug* I think it would help, but not solve the problem - the exact same thing would have happened overall or no overall.
rings said:
BBSB12 said:
The easiest fix is to drop Overall title. This way there is no real reason to intentionally lose in Melee (unless you are 100% sure that you are not winning the table you are at).
Which is easy to see many times (say, last year at Worlds). You can still hand over the Melee title to someone which comes with the same benefit thatt he overall does. *shrug* I think it would help, but not solve the problem - the exact same thing would have happened overall or no overall.
They should reevaluate the point structure. Melee is weighted more just because you have more opponents and more chance for points. If joust were a 10-point system, that would work better, I think.
But this thread got a little derailed.
They should remove all points and prizes from the Melee tournament. That way no one would care who wins!
Two things will help melee
Institute "true swiss" rounds. That way you are always playing at a table with people of similar points. This will remove many shenanigans of a player with "no chance of advancing" attempting to help player rated much differently.
Separate the events. Joust and Melee or so very, very different games. Why let the outcome of one event possibly have any effect on the outcome of another?
AGoT DC Meta said:
rings said:
BBSB12 said:
The easiest fix is to drop Overall title. This way there is no real reason to intentionally lose in Melee (unless you are 100% sure that you are not winning the table you are at).
Which is easy to see many times (say, last year at Worlds). You can still hand over the Melee title to someone which comes with the same benefit thatt he overall does. *shrug* I think it would help, but not solve the problem - the exact same thing would have happened overall or no overall.
They should reevaluate the point structure. Melee is weighted more just because you have more opponents and more chance for points. If joust were a 10-point system, that would work better, I think.
But this thread got a little derailed.
The point structure is fine. Currently you can get a max of 5 points per joust and 10 per melee.
6 rounds swiss plus 4 rounds in cut = 50 total possible points.
3 rounds melee plus 2 rounds in cut = 50 total possible points.
If you made joust games worth 10, then joust would be worth 100? Doesn't make sense. They are balanced by number of games.
That being said, I still think they should be separated.